Misunderstanding Faith, Works & Mary, the Mother of God with Nathan Jacobs (Hank Unplugged Podcast)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- Nathan Jacobs is a renaissance man. As an artist, author, philosopher, professor and filmmaker, Dr. Jacobs is truly an inspirational, informative and interesting individual. He joins host Hank Hanegraaff for a series of podcasts seeking to better explain Eastern Orthodoxy and explain away many of the most common misconceptions people have about Eastern Orthodoxy. In this podcast, they discuss why many Christians today have a misunderstanding of faith and works. Additionally, far too many Christians today misguidedly disregard the importance of Mary to the Christian faith and they discuss the role of Mary in the incarnation and the profound theological implications as the mother of God. Topics discussed include: Why do some Evangelicals believe that Hank Hanegraaff left the Christian faith when he became Eastern Orthodox? (0:20); discussing the differing framework of faith and works in the East and the West (4:20); we are not saved by good works, but for good works (17:30); discussing the Dormition of the Mother of God, Mary (20:25); the perpetual virginity of Mary (23:20); the role of Mary in the Incarnation and the profound theological implications (31:30); a preview of the next conversation in this podcast series with Nathan Jacobs on Sola Scriptura (35:00).
To learn more about Hank’s journey to Eastern Orthodoxy please see Truth Matters, Life Matters More: www.equip.org/...
-------------------------------------------------
Connect with the Christian Research Institute (CRI):
🔴 Subscribe to our channel: www.youtube.co...
🔴 Subscribe to the Bible Answer Man on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to “Hank Unplugged” on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to our magazine the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ's weekly podcast www.spreaker.c...
📒 Visit CRI’s website: www.equip.org/
✅ Listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast live streaming Monday through Friday from 6-6:30 PM ET online at www.equip.org/
#hankhanegraaff #bibleanswerman #easternorthodoxy
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who was evangelical and decided to finally take up the path to Orthodoxy, I must thank Hank Hanegraaf for this video which really clarifies a lot of issues raised by Protestants. I used to hear a lot about total depravity, TULIP, predestination, and so many other things uttered in Protestant circles, some of which have been repeated to the point that they have become clichéd misrepresentations of Eastern Orthodox and even Roman Catholic beliefs, and have taken root as "truth". One example is the whole faith and works relationship in which some Christians even scoff at works, as if it was something bad. Another was the constant denigration of Mary to this 'Mother of Christ' title which basically equates her to a mere contributor of the human flesh of Christ when we know very well that borders really close to a Nestorian or Adoptionist Christology. Coming from an academic background in medieval studies (which is linked to Catholicism closely), and studied Byzantine history itself, it really dawned on me that most evangelicals need to learn their church history better. If they do learn it, then these stereotypes won't have existed in the first place to begin with.
I remember being suuuuper confused when I moved to India because my friend kept introducing me to her "brothers" and "sisters" but I was almost 100% sure she only had one brother. Turns out, they were her cousins and cousins were just called brothers and sisters. I'm new to exploring Orthodoxy, but I've definitely have had a real-world experience with the term brothers being used for other relatives so that explanation makes a lot of sense to me.
I very much appreciate these videos. Thanks.
I think my view of faith/works as a Protestant is like a teenager saying I’m not cleaning my room because you told me to, I’m doing it because *I* want to. It’s a very important distinction 🤣
9 'Master,' said John, 'we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.' 50 'Do not stop him,' Jesus said, 'for whoever is not against you is for you.' 51
this Third Way is sort of similar to Wesleyan holiness or the doctrine of sanctification
It may be true that before Augustine, there were a diversity of statements and positions by the Early Church Fathers concerning free will and election, however it must be remembered that these Truths were not yet developed during their time. It was not until later that these Truths were developed. It was the same with the Doctrine of the Tinity, the Doctrine of the Deity and humanity of Christ and the Procession of the Holy Spirit. All of these doctrines were developed over time.
Good point! But (Iam persuaded) there is a consensus, for they clearly didn't hold to exhaustive divine determinism as a modern Reformed Calvinist holds. Nor the determinism that Augustine posited, and the view of predestination that he imported (as clearly seen from his very own writings - early to later life) from his pre Christian life. His earlier view in concord with the early church view of (indeterminate) free will.
The Orthodox are clear to this day that divine Providence gives room for real human freedom, in that, as John of Damascus would say, the good things come from God which he inspires... but he never decrees or influences us towards evil... in other words the reformed "compatibilist" view is completely incompatible with the early church and Eastern church (and many in the West) to this day
How did they differ?
I've read Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom and others who all had strikingly same conclusions of free will. Furthermore the council of Nicea articulated the Trinity in terms far better than any person or group that came after them.
My understanding is that God, through Christ, has opened up the door for humanity to re-enter the Eden of eternal life. But it is up to us to walk through the single door, (Jesus Christ), in repentance and faith. Is that a correct understanding Hank?
@Josh Alicea > Yes. That is the gist. We possess freewill to either choose or choose otherwise. But is never just a “yes” to a transaction, i.e. getting the “get out of hell free card” but nothing else to show for it afterwards. Instead, it is a “yes” to life in union with Christ. Daily walk with the Lord from earth to glory and forever.
CRI/Hank, what is the best way to begin studying the Orthodox faith? I need someone to point me in the right direction please? Thank you!
@@lorihilliard9956do you have a parish in your city? I could recommend some videos to start. Any by Fr. Josiah Trenham, Dr. Jeannie Constantinou
Nathan's claim about Augustine is just a classical oversimplification. It is not one man, and certainly not Augustine, who is the culprit of juridism in Western Christian culture and perception of Christian teaching. Rather there was a complex of historical, political etc. factors which led to it.
Greetings from Serbia to dear brethern in Christ!
Um, Augustine was certainly the biggest name involved and the most commonly referred to by the total depravity crowd.
InstaBlaster.
@@malachisgrace8689 yes, Calvin kept on harkening back to Augustine (and secondarily Ambrose or Jerome) alone in his writings to justify predestination. He was ironically not versed in Greek or Hebrew and unlike Luther who sought to communicate with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate in Constantinople (now Istanbul), Calvin literally did it alone in a way. Think of the way he treated Anabaptists by drowning them in water tanks, not even engaging in dialogue with them.
After listening to this video twice, I felt as though Mr. Jacobs was not clearly addressing the question of works/faith in the way that most Protestants would intend:. Most Protestants would be thinking something like: "Pretend there's an Eastern Orthodox man. He may have been baptized and may go to church once a year, or whenever his wife can make him. He "believes" in the Trinity, but he doesn't really pray except for the outcome of a sporting event or if a relative is really sick. He's an okay guy, and even pretty generous to his friends, but he's no saint. If this guy died unexpectedly, according to Eastern Orthodox theology, would he go to heaven or hell?" Then of course, those who are more OCD might ask, "How MUCH prayer/fasting/sacraments/alms, etc. IS needed for a person (according to Orthodox theology) to go to heaven? (The Protestant doctrine of once-saved-always-saved is very comforting to OCD/perfectionist folks who tend to magnify scruples.) As for Mary, my main question is the reliability of the sources of some of the stories about her that some Orthodox seem to fervently believe. To me, if the Early Church had venerated Mary to the degree she is often venerated in Orthodoxy, why is no one sure where she died? It's odd that she seems to just fade into obscurity. Also, since the Church Fathers approved the books in the New Testament, it's odd that Mary isn't given a more central role, or at least more mention made of her as a role model for the Christian woman, etc. I'm not trying to be difficult here, just putting forward genuine questions.
Interesting observations. Along those same lines, how long before a person leaves purgatory and who decides that? Same as when does one lose salvation if they believe that and how many times can one be saved? RCC and Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't sit well with my spirit.
A humble attempt to address some of your questions.
1. the EO guy in your comments would most likely end up in the place/state for purification through which he is refined before he can reach a state of theosis (union with God), where as those who have already achieved such a state while on earth are considered to be in heaven and are those the church would call 'saints'. which kind of explains why we pray to 'saints' (already in heaven) and also pray 'for the departed' because they haven't been purified enough yet.
2. How much is enough? Its not like a boot camp test where if you can complete 100 pushups, 50 pullups etc etc you're through..
but its like a necessary training required for enrichment of the soul and to acquire more of the Holy Spirit (more of Christ and less of us) kind of thing.. but again what motivates these is important. It should be done in the spirit of love (without love these are not worth much) Imagine if you will somebody giving alms in the hopes of God will bless him with even more riches (sounds like high return investment scheme)
But on the other hand are we all filled with love for our neighbour equally even if we believe in Christ?.. no. and so sometimes a more conscious effort is required (there is sometimes a struggle that we need to endure and win) and it is hoped that slowly over time we can fill ourselves with that true selfless love. So it isn't about whether you can give alms to 100 people but whether you have mortified self and acquired more of Christ to want to give alms with love for others being the truly motivating factor
3. once-saved-always-saved has a lot of problems because how does one individually determine that he/she had enough belief to be saved? take the example of those who fell aside later or apostated while under duress/torture.
is it merely because they didn't have enough faith in the first place?
were they able to recognize they didn't have enough faith?
can faith increase/decrease?
so again I would return this question as in 'how much faith is good enough'
4. regarding St. Mary, we cant judge the importance of a person merely because of how many mentions they receive in the Bible. (fact: most Apostolic Christians will state the name of Pontius Pilate more than the name of most saints in a day, because its in the creed) My usual take (though so far rather unsuccessfully) is about baptism. Why isn't there a clear cut instruction manual on how to perform a baptism? is it dunk three times, is it pour? can it be done inside, outside, in a river? what are the preparations if any? what prayers to be said? is fasting required? do I need to have the laying of hands? etc etc.. Even to this day we have enough people arguing that since every mention of baptism in the Acts is in the 'name of Jesus', that is the way the apostles did it and not in the name of the trinity. So since there seems to be confusion 2000 years down the line, why don't we find a letter from St. Paul or St. Peter 'the new believers guide to Baptism'?. My reasoning is that it was already pretty well established among the churches that nobody need to write it down in detail for the readers of the epistles to understand what baptism meant or what all it entailed. But that leads us to the next problem of why Clement of Rome and also Tertullian mention oil in baptism (from the time of the apostles).. and why the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us about this?
The new testament books are the canonized works that the church stamped with their authority as authentic (even though current scholars would question the authorship) and considering the traditions that they held at the time, should in no way could be considered a complete encyclopedia of everything church related. Considering St. Paul taught in Ephesus and Rome for years and we just have a few pages of it, truly does mean that there was a whole lot more that those churches were privy to than just the letters we have today. So it boils down to 'can we trust those churches to have atleast handed down some knowledge/traditions which was authentic but may not be explicitly found as a clear cut instruction manual in the Gospels/Epistles?' If you think that unlikely (they were flawed humans so obviously they messed up things immediately after St. John died) well nothing more to be said.
Related to this is the story of St. Mary.. The new testament is Jesus' and his apostles' story. The canon was limited to the works of the apostles and the gospels. To the early church it in no way contradicted the traditions or the liturgy they already had established in all the churches across Christendom. It didn't need to include St. Mary as proof because the church already believed.
So if the approach towards these things is 'since humans are flawed we cant really trust what any of them say and we can only rely on the canonized written work that is the New Testament, if we cant find things in the New testament then obviously its fake or untrue.'
St. Mary isn't the role model for a Christian woman, she is the role model for Christians. but since the New Testament doesn't talk about her much, a sola scriptura approach would always be 'we don't know enough about her to give her any importance and the only reason any importance needed to be given would be because of 'all generations shall call me blessed' so if we didn't even have that verse it would be like Ruth or Hanna etc just somebody God chose to work through.
The only reason to argue against that would be 'would or should any of the disciples of the apostles be taken seriously especially if they also performed incredible signs and miracles and were generally considered to have the Holy Spirit but none of what they wrote or said were included in the canon that is the New Testament' If the answer to this is no, after the apostles we don't need to consider anybody else or even any revelation they had as important. Then St. Mary becomes just another minor character in the Bible
When the Church fathers tell us that she is the Ark of the new covenant and whom St. John saw in heaven, well its the same question.. did all of the get it wrong? and if even so for what purpose? The church doesn't get a kick out of exalting St. Mary but her role is considered very important because they would always argue that she is the Mother of God and this is important not for the sake of giving more importance to St. Mary but to firmly state that Jesus was human, born in the flesh, the incarnation of the Word of God. Because of the numerous heresies around Jesus (being the Father himself with a different mask, or a creature created before everything else etc etc) This is all refuted when the church declares St. Mary as the Theotokos. And before somebody has conniptions about mother=creator, I would sincerely question does being the mother necessarily mean that person decided to create 'life'. The mother just states at some point 'let there be life' and the foetus is formed.. no.. life doesn't 'come' from us.. similarly the mother of God doesn't mean she created God. Now as mother of God and hence the primary dna contributor of Jesus as human and who loved Jesus more than probably any one else on earth.. just 'a vessel chosen by God', I think not. And when the saints who spent all their lives in prayer and meditation and performed wonders and miracles and signs, vehemently state 'She is the Theotokos, her body was taken to heaven (the dormition) and that she is the Ark of the New Covenant' im just going to say if I can choose to believe St. Peter, St. Paul and the others apostles, I have no problem believing the other church fathers as well.
Perry Good Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach the doctrine of Purgatory
Sounds to me like you are reading his answer through a lens of “once saved always saved”. Again, that’s presupposing an axiom not found in orthodoxy or the eastern fathers.
@@pappap1702 Eastern Orthodox rejects the doctrine of purgatory. That is Roman Catholicism. Believe is a present-tense action: "Those who believe". It is not a past event as in "Those who believed once upon a time". Do not do anything against your own conscience since it does not sit well with your spirit. Keep praying on it. There is a right time for everything... hopefully.
Truth matters. Life matters more?
Dead wrong.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life...John 14:6
Jesus Christ is the way.
Jesus Christ is the truth.
Jesus Christ is the life.
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.
If you don't have the Truth, you don't have Christ.
If you don't have the Truth, you don't have Christ and therefore you do not have Life.
some pepole are so ignorend of history.from were they get they faith..??
How should I understand what God was/ is doing with Protestantism? Is it of God?
There have been many great contributions from Protestants.
Hank encourages cultivating unity according to the prayer of Jesus in John 17.
Listen to this podcast… www.equip.org/unplugged/the-key-to-christian-unity-is-humility-with-francis-chan-and-metropolitan-yohan/
There is only one Mediator between God and man, and that is the man Christ Jesus. He continues to make intercession for his people at the right hand of the Father. Dead saints do not hear prayers. You may not pray to the dead. That is witchcraft.
Theotokos - Mother of God or God bearer was not implemented into the Creed of Chalcedon to promote the Abomination of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the Veneration of Mary or petioning her to make intercession. It was upheld to emphasize Jesus Christ as very God and very Man. Mary brought forth Immanuel conceived of the Holy Ghost. The focus is not Mary, the focus is Jesus Christ in his Divinity and in his Humanity. That is God in the flesh. One Person with two natures. It is Heresy to say Mary only gave birth to Jesus as a human being or only in his Humanity alone. No. Again, Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and he was God, He is God and He shall forever be God.
@@samuelvasquez589 “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.””
Matthew 22:31-32
Nothing anywhere in Scripture tells us to pray to anyone except God through Jesus Christ.
Yes. But we are told to seek Intersesory prayer from our fellow saints. And the apostolic church has always taught that we are not limited to asking for prayer from people in the church militant but also from those in the church triumphant. We believe that “the great cloud of witnesses” are very alive and with Christ and able to pray for us. So the “praying to them” is not anywhere near the same as worshiping God and asking God for mercy and grace. By going to another saint we are simply obeying God’s word who taught us to pray for one another even though technically speaking we could just go to God for all our concerns-yet God still tells us to pray and intercede for one another just the same.
@@djnv4702 scripture please.
Bill Hipster duffs
Revelation 5:8
“And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
atgred yes, saints are fellow believers. We are to pray constantly. You must know this if you are a believer.
@@atgred Those are not the prayers of those you call Catholic Saints but prayers of all believers through the ages. All believers are Saints according to Scripture. No where are we told to pray to Saints and no where does the Bible indicate anyone in Heaven hears our prayers except God.
What Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and the Great Synod of Dort taught was further development of what was taught by the early church fathers such as Augustine and what was established as True Orthodoxy in the Early Church Counils and Creeds according to Scripture.
Calvin taught the damning of the Son, this is a heresy. He also denied the eternal begetting of the Son, this is just bad theology. He and Luther believed in infant baptism and Augustine believed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, infant baptism and all those "catholic" things I'm sure you reject. The early church was hardly Reformed.
@@andys3035
Infant Baptism is the sign and seal that the children of believers are included in the Covenant of Grace as evidenced by the Protoevangel in Paradise, as the Promise spoken to Abraham and his seed, as expounded to Moses in Circumcision, as explained plainly in Galations which will come to complete fruition according to the book of Revelation. This is all according to Scripture not Roman Catholic Tradition.
@@samuelvasquez589 Agreed, but you seem to be picking and choosing which doctrines Augustine held to based on a Reformed view of history. There are other things besides infant baptism that I mentioned that Augustine believed and you reject. It's why Protestants like to quote mine Augustine, mainly for his views on predestination.
@@andys3035 I quote, "Calvin taught the damning of the Son." You make an ambiguous statement with no reference point. Scripture states in Galations 3:13-14a "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;" That is the Biblical teaching of Propitiation. That is the Gospel.
@@andys3035
There is much more to the teachings of Augustine that we hold to as Reformed people but our final authority in all matters of faith in practice is not Calvin, is not Luther and it is not Augustine. Our final Authority is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, Holy Word of God.
So I just heard this belief directly from an Orthodox person:
"Yes Amen! the Holy Mother of God is eternal and timeless. She is the embodiment of the Holy Spirit! The Holy Divine Mother Spirit!"
What gave you gotten yourself into, Hank? Is this what you believe now?
It is difficult to know what that person meant with that theological language, i.e. “eternal and timeless” “embodiment of the Holy Spirit” and “Divine Mother Spirit.” It is certainly far from what one gets in examining Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly their beliefs on Theotokos.
Please listen to this episode of Hank Unplugged with Nathan Jacobs on understanding Mary, the Mother of God…. www.equip.org/unplugged/misunderstanding-faith-works-and-mary-the-mother-of-god-with-nathan-jacobs/
Some who say they are Eastern Orthodox may be ignorant of the beliefs and practices of Eastern Orthodoxy. Nobody is immune to making a doctrinal gaff.
If you want to know what Orthodoxy teaches you can't quote some Orthodox guy and assume he's got it right. You need to study it out. Same goes for what any person in any tradition may say.
It simply is not true that the Truths of the Reformation such as Election, Justification by Faith Alone, Salvation by Grace Alone thru Faith Alone in Christ Alone, according to Scripture Alone, and For God’s Glory Alone contradict the Early Chuch Fathers. On the contrary they are a development of the early church fathers, the early church councils and the early church Creeds.
Evangelical worship an idol and have the idol in their churches. It has red and white stripes and 50 white stars on it. Evangelicals worship the American flag.
@GaylordGoertzen-pf1uy Appreciate the input. That is an overgeneralization, but yes there are instances where patriotism is confused with Christianity. www.equip.org/articles/how-to-engage-in-politics-without-losing-your-soul/ www.equip.org/articles/healing-the-divide-moving-forward-after-the-election/
Jesus entrusted Mary to John because his brothers weren't even at the crucifixion! They didn't even believe in Jesus at the time. John was the best choice to take care of his mother and express the love of a firstborn son, who bore the responsibility for his mother's well-being. I can't believe all this verbal gymnastics to get around the obvious, that Mary did have children and is not a perpetual virgin.
Mary bore the Son of God. Who, then, is her spouse?
The brothers believed 2 days later. Does not matter. They were to honor their parents.
And if you really studied the New Testament you would know that the brothers of Jesus are the sons of Marie's sister.
It is all clearly there but apparently you never really studied the Bible and just make ignorant statements.
Read about who was present at the Crucifixion and you can put it together.
Paul says better to remain virgin!
Do Mary did the "better!"
Yes teaching the doctrine of man that mary was sinless, and a perpetual virgin and not only the mother of Jesus, the Son of God , but now she's the mother of God , the mother of the Trinity no less , and I suppose you have an answer for the book of James or perhaps Jude that relates to your tradition , "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"
"Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition"
This is shameful and sad on many levels 😪
The bald guy could learn to truncate his ideas ,then expand on them. Cause that was a long explanation.
Which bald guy??🤣🤣
@@jonathanreeve7823 lol. True. Not hank.
I think exactly the same. 20 min and have not yet got to any conclusion. He has not answer yet to the dilema of salvaron with faith/works...
It's the gift of the Holy Spirit, which believers are given to walk in and be guided by; the gift of righteousness which is the Holy Spirit. Walking in (accordance with) the Holy Spirit produces the good works, which, as Paul says we were created IN HIM (in his Holy Spirit) to perform. He said I must depart that the Holy Spirit may come and guide you into all truth, testify about me and be the comforter and enable us to walk in righteousness, the requirement for life in abundance.
Don't jump from the firepan into the fire by going from one sectarian division to another. There is only one church and that is the body if believers, the body of Christ. Only Christ died for you. And you were betrothed to only one groom, Jesus. Hang your head in shame, brother.
Mary married Joseph so I doubt she was a perpetual virgin.
@William Martibez I agree. Many argue his siblings were only half brothers.
@@peterstan3723 I would have to disagree with your conclusions.
@@peterstan3723 Mary stated she needed a savior Luke 1 46-47 And Mary said:
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. God was her Savior
@@peterstan3723
You certain that this notion was widely held in the early church?
@@peterstan3723 The Bible says Joseph knew her meaning intimacy which means sexually.
Eastern Orthodoxy IS NOT CHRISTIAN! Ask an EX Eastern Orthodox!
You were obviously, NOT an Evangelical to begin with! A true Evangelical is a believer in the WHOLE BIBLE AND ALL IT’S TEACHINGS! You embraced E. Orthodoxy because you were NEVER A TRUE EVANGELICAL! A true Christian NEVER CONVERTS TO ANY OTHER SYSTEM OF BELIEF!
This is basic Catholic apologetics...
No, it isn't. They repeatedly refused catholic teaching in this talk.
not even close.
It sounds Catholic to me, even though they say they are not the same as the RCC. The differences are subtle. Or they appear so to me.